This was the 1st thing that came to our minds when they showed with cameras rolling. It was a set up. All to obvious given the PC environment we are forced to exist in. We have given them the heavy artillery in this conflict.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....
- Thread starter terrehautian
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This was the 1st thing that came to our minds when they showed with cameras rolling. It was a set up. All to obvious given the PC environment we are forced to exist in. We have given them the heavy artillery in this conflict.
Yes, that was reported some time ago but not by any mainstream sources. The Gaystopo basically put activists up to finding a bakery who wouldn't transact with them, so that they could push the issue in court and get a bunch of positive publicity. It really worked for them.
**********s.
Nah. Not even close to the same thing.
Yes, how blacks were treated needed to be made corrected, and breaking an unjust law is sometimes necessary. However, the civil rights era is nothing like what happened with the Baker. They're not even close. Before the CRA, laws prohibited black people from operating in public as freely as whites. And in areas where they did have the legal freedom to operate, businesses banned together to enforce those standards anyway. Essentially it was a Hobson's choice for black people. You want to ride public transportation? Back of the bus. Take it or leave it. No choice. Dinner at a restaurant? Same thing. Jim Crow laws and needed to be removed. De facto discriminatory business policies needed to be prohibited. The CRA probably went too far with correcting it, but that's a story for another time.
Clearly the bakery thing today isn't anything like the civil rights era of pre-1964. The cities where these things went to court are very progressive cities. There are plenty of bakeries owned by people with no such religious convictions. That bakery did not create a no choice situation for gay customers. They could go almost anywhere else, and they actually had to go to several places before they could find one of the few places that wouldn't do the wedding cake. And, as was mentioned, the baker didn't refuse to provide any other services. They just didn't want to service a gay wedding. To try to make that equal with the civil rights era is so absurd that I'm actually shocked that you'd suggest that. If you think that baker was being hateful, I think you've completely misread the story.
Totally disgusting behavior by these idiots.
I can see the need for laws that protect individuals and groups from businesses using their monopolistic or market power to "unperson" people. Prior to the civil rights act, even if a business wanted to treat blacks fairly, they'd be outcast by the community, other businesses/suppliers. But in this case, it's nothing like that. The two big bakery "gay wedding" cases we heard about were in very progressive cities where gays are openly welcome. They're trying to equate this situation with the civil rights era is unconscionable.
In my mind we are all born with the same rights. All of us have the same package so to speak. As we generate more and more protected classes this will only get worse.
That's an individualist's point of view. Shameful that fewer Americans have an individualist ethos. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had too much of a collectivist purpose. I think it went too far by creating protected classes. One thing it did that was absolutely correct, it abolished laws that descriminate. However, they could have protected blacks' rights by protecting their rights as an individual. Not that anyone has a particular right to the labor of other people, but also businesses don't have a right to use the power of their market position to "unperson" people they don't like. Civil rights could be much stronger if they'd have attempted to solve that problem in a more individualistic way.
The pressure was on. What we ended up with as you say could have and should have been more well rounded. Looking back that was the beginning of protected classes. You and I remember how it was then and much needed to be changed. And it was for the most part but as with any well intention laws this has evolved and morphed well beyond what the good Dr King envisioned. When 1% of the population (Est.) can hold the rest hostage there is an issue.
This entire PC thing is another issue.
This is the unfortunate side effect of the Civil Rights era. Once the Court starting singling out exceptions to the right of free association, the door was flung wide open.
If you are a racist and want to have only white friends, that's perfectly legal. But if you are a racist owner of an apartment complex, you cannot have only white tenants. That's illegal if your racism can be proven to the be the reason for the all-white makeup of the tenancy.
I submit: the freedom of association-- to have absolutely discretion over with whom you will befriend, work for, do business with, etc is sacrosanct.
What's forgotten in much of the Jim Crow discussion is how many, many blacks fled the South and moved north to freely associate with people who would freely associate with them. In 1860, Chicago had 112k population. By 1900, that had grown to 1.6 million. A large fraction of that population was Americans migrating north from the racist South. The Blues came to Chicago with them.
Likewise, Motown only existed in Detroit because black Americans moved North in waves in the early 1900s to work and live where there were not racist obstacles for them.
What was the result?
The South was economically depressed until air condition allowed some Southern metro areas to regain population again. The massive flood of human capital away from the South had long lasting consequences and is why the booming economy of the North largely left behind the South after WW2. It was the stretch from NY to Chicago that powered the mighty industry of the USA after WW2. The south was left behind.
Now that dynamic is playing out somewhat in reverse as the ineffective and corrupt big goverment statists that ran many of these cities are now seeing their populations declining and people flee to areas with more freedom. CA is declining. Illinois will be our first state to go bankrupt (it already is on an actuarial basis). Michigan is largely dead. Ohio is a zombie economy struggling to mate old and new.
The point here is this: allowing people to freely associate-- to vote with their feet-- eventually brings justice. That racist apartment owner need NOT be forced to rent to people by law. He will eventually have no apartments to rent because people won't live in his slum.
Uncle Miltie said it best. Equality legislation leads to discrimination:
[video=youtube_share;hsIpQ7YguGE]https://youtu.be/hsIpQ7YguGE[/video]
If you are a racist and want to have only white friends, that's perfectly legal. But if you are a racist owner of an apartment complex, you cannot have only white tenants. That's illegal if your racism can be proven to the be the reason for the all-white makeup of the tenancy.
I submit: the freedom of association-- to have absolutely discretion over with whom you will befriend, work for, do business with, etc is sacrosanct.
What's forgotten in much of the Jim Crow discussion is how many, many blacks fled the South and moved north to freely associate with people who would freely associate with them. In 1860, Chicago had 112k population. By 1900, that had grown to 1.6 million. A large fraction of that population was Americans migrating north from the racist South. The Blues came to Chicago with them.
Likewise, Motown only existed in Detroit because black Americans moved North in waves in the early 1900s to work and live where there were not racist obstacles for them.
What was the result?
The South was economically depressed until air condition allowed some Southern metro areas to regain population again. The massive flood of human capital away from the South had long lasting consequences and is why the booming economy of the North largely left behind the South after WW2. It was the stretch from NY to Chicago that powered the mighty industry of the USA after WW2. The south was left behind.
Now that dynamic is playing out somewhat in reverse as the ineffective and corrupt big goverment statists that ran many of these cities are now seeing their populations declining and people flee to areas with more freedom. CA is declining. Illinois will be our first state to go bankrupt (it already is on an actuarial basis). Michigan is largely dead. Ohio is a zombie economy struggling to mate old and new.
The point here is this: allowing people to freely associate-- to vote with their feet-- eventually brings justice. That racist apartment owner need NOT be forced to rent to people by law. He will eventually have no apartments to rent because people won't live in his slum.
Uncle Miltie said it best. Equality legislation leads to discrimination:
[video=youtube_share;hsIpQ7YguGE]https://youtu.be/hsIpQ7YguGE[/video]
...which is why I refer to them and their ilk as the Gaystapo. They do not want merely to live and to let live; they want to dictate how others choose to live their lives. Mere tolerance is not their aim; it is not even acceptable to them. They want to force societal acceptance.
There was no discrimination. The bakery owners were willing to sell the couple one of their pre-made cakes, to do with as they wish (even serve it as part of their wedding).
I agree about equality legislation leading to discrimination. The baker is exactly an instance of that.
I used to think exactly the same thing about freedom of association as you though. But I am no longer an absolutist. The exception is when freedom of association is weaponized against people. You should not be able to conspire with other businesses, or use your market position to prevent people from being able to operate in the world. It's not that people have a right to your labor. A transaction should be a free choice for all parties. However, you don't have a right to weaponize your freedoms. It's very similar to anti-trust laws existing to prevent businesses from using their market power to manipulate conditions which eliminates their competition. The civil rights act should have been a lot more like that, but to protect consumers. Then we would not have created laws which make group identities matter.
Last edited:
Tolerance isn't their aim at all evidenced by the preference for tolerance among their tribe and intolerance for those outside. And I'll suggest a goal even more sinister than merely forcing societal acceptance. They want to change the individualistic culture to a group identity culture, where the power is flipped between those who hold the majority world view of an individualist ethos, and all the "oppressed" identity groups. Cultural Marxism is a good way to describe the ethos of this group.
I'm not sure this is even the underlying cause, because of how progressive that city was. I think it was much more a money and power shakedown. "Nice business you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it"
I think they wanted to make an example of someone, so when they broke them others would be more likely to toe the party line
Well, It seems some folks took issue with my analogy.
They were refused the same service in certain areas based upon the colour of their skin. While it wasn't religious, it was irrelevant to the service that was refused. And some did justify this discrimination based upon scripture.
I agree, but this is a separate issue. My only point was that you push someone to, in your opinion, discriminate against you, then you file the lawsuit. You cannot change the law/policy without having someone do you harm, not in the courts anyway.
Again, I am NOT equating degrees of wrongness or maltreatment, only that to challenge something in the courts you MUST be wronged in some way. They targeted the baker to bring the lawsuit, nothing more. At least I am not claiming anything more.
What he was willing to sell them was irrelevant. They did not want a premade cake. They simply asked him to provide a service that was well within his expertise that was offered to others. The idiotic explanation of his refusal gave them more solid ground to sue.
----------------------------
I have said before that it is asinine to give ammunition to someone you KNOW is looking for trouble no matter what you believe.
I might not believe a woman should do the work I am hiring for. I am a completely incompetent IDIOT if I tell a woman this before refusing to hire her. I can say the position has been filled. I can say nothing at all. But when I am stupid today and give her ammo then it is as much my responsibility as hers.
Also note that the courts, despite common media spin, HAVE NOT SUPPORTED HIM ON THIS! At least, not yet. SCOTUS ruled that Colorado showed bias and thus was not allowed to push him, but that is very different from ruling on the validity of his claim, or the gay couples. They kicked the can well on this.
Regards,
Doug
They were refused the same service in certain areas based upon the colour of their skin. While it wasn't religious, it was irrelevant to the service that was refused. And some did justify this discrimination based upon scripture.
I agree, but this is a separate issue. My only point was that you push someone to, in your opinion, discriminate against you, then you file the lawsuit. You cannot change the law/policy without having someone do you harm, not in the courts anyway.
Again, I am NOT equating degrees of wrongness or maltreatment, only that to challenge something in the courts you MUST be wronged in some way. They targeted the baker to bring the lawsuit, nothing more. At least I am not claiming anything more.
What he was willing to sell them was irrelevant. They did not want a premade cake. They simply asked him to provide a service that was well within his expertise that was offered to others. The idiotic explanation of his refusal gave them more solid ground to sue.
----------------------------
I have said before that it is asinine to give ammunition to someone you KNOW is looking for trouble no matter what you believe.
I might not believe a woman should do the work I am hiring for. I am a completely incompetent IDIOT if I tell a woman this before refusing to hire her. I can say the position has been filled. I can say nothing at all. But when I am stupid today and give her ammo then it is as much my responsibility as hers.
Also note that the courts, despite common media spin, HAVE NOT SUPPORTED HIM ON THIS! At least, not yet. SCOTUS ruled that Colorado showed bias and thus was not allowed to push him, but that is very different from ruling on the validity of his claim, or the gay couples. They kicked the can well on this.
Regards,
Doug
That's the crux of the problem. You have to equate the two to justify what those people did, which is impossible since they were not justified and what they did was wrong, immoral and unethical.
If you were just trying to tell everyone that someone needs standing to successfully pursue a lawsuit . . . we know that, so it made no sense to assume that was your intent. Your message in the context of this topic appeared to be equating the two.
No. He is a baker. He bakes baked goods. He offered to sell them the baked goods that he bakes. Anything beyond that is a contractual arrangement between the baker and another person. Not entering into such a contractual arrangement with this specific person is not discrimination.
Forcing the baker to enter into that contractual arrangement would violate sincerely held religious beliefs, and would itself be religiously discriminatory against the baker.
And its not just the militant gays that are doing this.
I recall reading an article a couple of years ago about a guy in a wheelchair that made a good living shaking down non-ADA compliant businesses. He would literally roll into an establishment with the laws and a tape measure. He would proceed to inspect the business for compliance issues. When he would find them he would shake down the owner for a settlement instead of reporting him and suing him for non compliance. His shakedown was cheaper than the fines.
And he would be nitpicky; ADA says the hand dryer should be mounted no more than 36" above the floor? Yours is mounted at 38" so therefore not in compliance. The Sink is also too high by 4", the ramp (if there is one) is too steep, etc.
I guess he had quite the reputation.
I recall reading an article a couple of years ago about a guy in a wheelchair that made a good living shaking down non-ADA compliant businesses. He would literally roll into an establishment with the laws and a tape measure. He would proceed to inspect the business for compliance issues. When he would find them he would shake down the owner for a settlement instead of reporting him and suing him for non compliance. His shakedown was cheaper than the fines.
And he would be nitpicky; ADA says the hand dryer should be mounted no more than 36" above the floor? Yours is mounted at 38" so therefore not in compliance. The Sink is also too high by 4", the ramp (if there is one) is too steep, etc.
I guess he had quite the reputation.
Who was wronged?
It's idiotic in your worldview. Why is your worldview the standard?
And no, they did not ask for a service he offers to others. He did not offer custom wedding cake services for same sexes to anyone.
This is the case I've made against Mourdock for his infamous abortion gaffe. That's a candidate for public office though. And this guy should know the score and know when to keep his mouth shut to avoid the ****storm created by militant gay activists. But, people shouldn't have to lie just to avoid ****storms. Because this is the world we live in now he can't be honest about his beliefs. And you know he has to be honest about them, selective or not. A lot of Christians think they have to wear it on their sleeves or they're not being loyal to Jesus. He's probably thinking he's "witnessing" but to the gay couple, they're thinking, "Got him. Off to court". Completely different worldviews colliding. But only one is trying to force a world view on the other.
Site Supporter
Members online
- INPatriot
- Mgderf
- steif
- jspy5
- bub74
- WabashMX5
- jbm1521
- Jacob271
- shootersix
- Singlestack
- blueskies
- patience0830
- dboz
- Indye41
- drgnrobo
- boosteds13cc
- Hayden F
- HoosierHunter07
- brizzad
- sescbo
- goldtrigger
- BR8818
- Excalibur
- Rafterman
- casper975
- snapping turtle
- tv1217
- x34822
- Steel and wood
- BigBoxaJunk
- jimbob488
- Snapdragon
- led4thehed2
- tca1352
- Nacho Man
- khalicrespo
- 10mm
- Lee11b
- loudgroove
- tylerr23
- swamptick
- 2tonic
- nater30/30
- GSPBirdDog
- INgunowner
- bwframe
- jsn_mooney
- DJM95B
